Better

We have accepted more and more violations of basic rights after any tragedy: Invasive TSA searches, more and more "gun free" zones, "Airport style" security at events and theme parks, etc. None of this has made us safer. I'm beginning to think the false flag conspiracy theories might be true. It's obvious that complete disarment of the American people is an ultimate end goal (conspiracy or not).

Legally, if you feel they are going too far, you cannot make them stop. You cannot Say, nevermind, i just wont fly (it is ILLEGAL to back out of a pat down), so yes, with everthing that counts as **pe nowadays, being unable to stop someone from touching you sounds an awful lot like sexual assault.

I wouldn't care what their deal was. Ever been to a shooting range? There's plenty of people there with lots of guns and nobody knows anybody's mindset. We don't need to, know why? Cuz we got guns! Having a gun changes everything.

I've been to shooting ranges many times. But a shooting range is much different than a passenger airplane. One clear difference is that if someone fires a gun on an airplane, for whatever reason, the bullet can go through the wall and cause a potentially disastrous decompression event.

While I agree with those false-flag theories, I don't think that they are even necessary for the point they are trying to make. The fact is that they are disarming us, regardless of whether or not they are trying to.

Maybe you don't follow the illogical nature of my meme and how it reflects the same way many gun control advocates behave.

In my meme, the subject sees a pro-LGBT Gadsden Flag and an LGBT gun owner. The subject reacts emotionally rather than logically by implying that gun control advocates must hate LGBT people because they want to ban certain weapons that may be used by some LGBT people.

It is the same illogical reasoning that says, "(If or since) They don't agree with our solutions to 'limiting access to certain guns' they hate children and victims of gun violence."
That is the faulty reasoning/logic that has been stated and implied many times by the recent wave of gun control advocates. i.imgflip.com/27mtc6.jpg (click to show)

I got the point of the meme comment and its deliberately absurd argument. I was simply saying that some of the arguments gun control advocates make which draw much of the scorn and derision aren't as illogical as some people claim.

Also, I hear that same absurd logic from many conservatives when it comes to the transgender bathroom policies: if you think transgender people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they want, you must want little girls to get sexually assaulted!

If you understood the deliberately absurd nature of the argument, why didn't you say that it was deliberately absurd and say that gun control advocates shouldn't use such absurd rationale in their argumentation? After saying that, mentioning the people on the right wouldn't seem so hypocritical, or seem like trying to deflect the argument.

I think it is one of two reasons:
1. You use that type of argumentation. Or
2. You take up for and don't want to draw the ire of other people on the Left who do use it.

Some of their arguments are not illogical (they have their own set of problems) but we can't even discuss those because first we have to get past the absurd, illogical appeals to emotion that are so prevalent.

Appeals to emotion come from the Left and Right. When I hear people on the Right do it, I will denounce them.

"If you understood the deliberately absurd nature of the argument, why didn't you say that it was deliberately absurd and say that gun control advocates shouldn't use such absurd rationale in their argumentation?"

Because I don't feel that their arguments are equally as absurd as the parody one you made.

People on both sides are equally capable of hypocrisy.

Neither of your two reasons accurately describes me. I don't use that argumentation, nor do I fear drawing the ire of people who do.

"Appeals to emotion come from the Left and Right. When I hear people on the Right do it, I will denounce them."

*Neither of your two reasons accurately describes me. I don't use that argumentation, nor do I fear drawing the ire of people who do.*

That is cherry picking because I also said, "You take up for and..." When you ignore that part or "pick the parts of the statement that don't apply to you" and argue against them I see why your statement was so hypocritical:

You understood the point I was trying to make.
You appeal to the rational, substantial (yet flawed) argumentation of the Left, AND ignore the irrational, absurd, emotional argumentation the Left uses.
Then you deflect from the Left by stating the irrational, absurd, emotional argumentation that those on the Right uses.

Why?

Because like I said, "You take up for," the Left and their emotional argumentation.

That is why your mentioning the "absurd logic of many conservatives" is very hypocritical.

How many times has David Hogg, Emma Gonzalez, and whoever else, survivor of a shooting or politician, gotten on TV and said such things as "the NRA are child killers," "whoever supports the NRA has blood on their hands," and "any congress people who take support from the NRA are just as guilty," etc.? That is irrational, absurd emotionalism and ought to be decried by any critically thinking person.

Until people on the political and social left do that, their arguments that actually have substance are not going to gain any traction. I can argue against those arguments but I'm not going to while the illogical appeals to emotion are so prevalent.

"That is cherry picking because I also said, "You take up for and..." When you ignore that part or "pick the parts of the statement that don't apply to you" and argue against them I see why your statement was so hypocritical:"

I didn't deliberately ignore the part about "taking up for". I mentioned both of your points, one of which contained that premise. I assumed you would recognize that by mentioning both points, I was covering all the premises contained therein. If you wish me to state it explicitly, then I will: I do not take up for people on the left who use those absurd arguments.

The only reason I ignore the "irrational, absurd, emotional argumentation" used by some on the left is because (1) I don't feel their arguments deserve an intelligent response, being as obviously absurd as they are, and (2) there is certainly no shortage of people on the right ready to heed the clarion call to denounce these absurd arguments for what they are: absurd. Why should I repeat what a dozen people are already saying?

I suppose it's a fair criticism that I bring conservative hypocrisy* into the conversation whenever liberal hypocrisy is brought up, but that is because I feel that both sides are equally guilty of this.

* I'm using the word hypocrisy here as shorthand for not just hypocrisy, but also irrational, absurd, emotional argumentation, etc.

I'll emphatically repeat my earlier assertion that I do not take up for the left when they use absurd, emotional argumentation.

If someone says "the NRA are child killers," "whoever supports the NRA has blood on their hands," and "any congress people who take support from the NRA are just as guilty," (I'm careful to include all three parts of the quote lest you accuse me of ignoring one), that is absurd and irrational.

"That is irrational, absurd emotionalism and ought to be decried by any critically thinking person."

I absolutely agree. But the argument can also be made that what they are saying is SO stupid, it didn't even deserve an intelligent response. That's why you don't see laboratories and scientific bodies working tirelessly around the clock to crank out stacks and stacks of scientific articles and research debunking a flat Earth. It's not remotely worth their time.

(pt 2)
As for your point about not addressing the more substantive arguments they make because the absurd and irrational arguments take the fore, that is certainly your choice, although it smacks of not taking the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. The way to make irrational arguments less prevalent is to make rational arguments MORE prevalent. Do your part to intentionally steer conversations toward points that actually matter, and let the irrational fools eventually fall by the wayside. Their din will fade.

OK, it seems like you were taking up for their appeals to emotion, because those types of arguments do deserve to be pointed out as illogical appeals to emotion. Whether we are talking to someone on the Left or Right who is using an appeal to emotion as their argument, we who know better, should tell them that is what it is and ask them if they have any substantive arguments. Many of them do not and that shuts down their arguing. (Or as I have seen the appeals to emotion and ad hominems escalate. When that happens, then they deserve to be ignored, or trolled.)

Why would you want to do it? Because that type of correction is stronger when it comes from someone who already agrees with some of their premises or goals! Perhaps the person making the bad argumentation would be willing to accept correction from someone who is associated with their "political side" or considered an "ally."

I know the substantive arguments for topics like gun control. I also know how to point out the weaknesses in those arguments. But on certain topics I'm not going to tell someone I disagree with what arguments they ought to using against me. I'm going to tell them their arguments are bad, why they are bad, and to go find some better arguments.

If it were someone with whom I agreed with some of their premises or goals, I'd tell them about their bad arguments and tell them better arguments. That is one major way in which people become more politically and socially competent and able to defend and support their position.

When we are discussing political and social issues, it is not good to leave people with whom you agree on some issues to wallow in their ignorance, or even if they are not ignorant, to present ignorant argumentation. All we can do is try to correct them...especially if their bad argumentation is leading the conversation.

You made very good points here. The one thing I will comment on is when you said that on some topics, you don't want to let the person with whom you're conversing know about better arguments they should use against you. If you feel your logic and arguments can stand on their own, you would have no reason not to do that. You would have nothing to fear, especially since you likely already know how to counter those better arguments.

I'll put it his way: imagine you are literally bulletproof like Superman and someone is about to shoot you with a .22. What would you have to lose by handing them a Desert Eagle? It still wouldn't hurt you.

I am tempted to do that because I am a natural teacher. I like to instruct people and be instructed.

I am not as concerned about people using the good arguments against me specifically, rather using them against people who already agree with my position but do not know how to answer and counter those arguments.

I have to think about the people who already agree with some of the positions that I hold. I'll help them by pointing out their bad argumentation and poor logic and instructing them on better arguments. When I have opportunity I will instruct them on how to counter the best arguments of the other side. But I don't want to hurt them by equipping our political and social rivals with their side's best arguments!

There are people I know who don't properly know how to defend what they say they believe, and I could have them all mixed up by properly presenting and arguing the best counter arguments to what they say they believe.

1. the AR 15 Is Not used in Most Mass shootings... it's their 'Poster Gun" because it has a cool name (invoking the AK 47) and it is big and black and scary and looks like something the Military hands out (yet No Military on our Planet uses them) *see attached meme

2. most People had never even heard of a Bump Stock before the Vegas shooting; yet Banning it was one of the first things suggested in the wake of that Tragedy

3. Cruz at Parkland was one of few, if not the Only, 'Mass Shooter' to be between 18-21... Why was "raise the age Limit" one of the biggest pushes to come out of that?